Victory for the Constitution!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

So you're taking the terrorists' word that someone is a criminal?

Absolutely ( although I would quarrel with the term "criminal"; this is a war, not a police action ).

The various spokesmen for AQ may be delusional in many ways, but they do not seem to be given to lying about their intentions, their motives or their actions...

And while I could see them doing so in order to exonerate one of their own, what do you think would be their motive for doing so in order to incriminate one?

we can arrest anyone who Al Qaeda says is close to Bin Laden?

I'd say it's a good starting place.

I don't think that testimony from members of Al Qaeda, outside of other evidence, constitutes proof

That's not what you said in answer to previous questions, you know.

--but then again, that's for a jury to decide, or at the very minimum a judge or some military court. The important thing is that some sort of trial happens.

Why?

What is the substantive difference between al Zawahiri saying X on a videotape on Al Jazeera and playing that same tape in a courtroom?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Absolutely ( although I would quarrel with the term "criminal"; this is a war, not a police action ).

The various spokesmen for AQ may be delusional in many ways, but they do not seem to be given to lying about their intentions, their motives or their actions...

And while I could see them doing so in order to exonerate one of their own, what do you think would be their motive for doing so in order to incriminate one?

It's more power for Al Qaeda. Why we would give the power to put our enemies in jail indefinitely to our enemies is beyond me. Do we ask serial killers who other serial killers are? No. Even informants aren't generally sufficient (to my knowledge) to convict a criminal without further evidence. And when they are, there are at least people overseeing that the witness is reliable, such as the judge and jury. What we're talking about here is absolute power, first to our enemies which I find to be illogical, and second to any soldier who can claim that one of our enemies made such a statement.

I think we should figure out who criminals are the same way people have been doing for thousands of years: by catching them either carrying out or planning actual crimes. Isn't that essential to justice; that a crime must actually be involved before someone is arrested?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That's not what you said in answer to previous questions, you know.

I certainly tried not say it. In any case, I attempted to say that you're establishing likelihood, not proof. Granted, there's some grey area even in domestic laws as to when likelihood is sufficient for arrest (probable cause and whatnot), but I don't think that there's ever a case where being the wrong person's friend is incriminating. I think the gap between the evidence and the crime is huge. Being friends with the wrong people makes someone a terrorist?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Why?

What is the substantive difference between al Zawahiri saying X on a videotape on Al Jazeera and playing that same tape in a courtroom?

In the courtroom, people hear it and judge whether or not it's a. trustworthy and b. sufficient to convict someone. That's oversight, and oversight is critical to any sort of justice no matter the circumstances.

As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and you're giving a lot of people absolute power over others' freedoms here.

[Philistine]

Hamdan (Bin Ladin's driver) was Convicted on serveral counts of supporting terrorism, and acquitted of conspiracy.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

And the sentence-- time served plus 5 months. (5 1/2 years total). Just... wow.

Link

--Philistine

[Lemonaide]

I saw that story myself, I don't know what to think of the Justice System anymore! I find it difficult. Why would a mere driver receive such a harsh sentence?

On another front: an 83 year old man lost consciousness while driving and swerved into oncoming traffic causing a huge accident in which several people were killed, he received a ten year sentence. It wasn't as if he had committed a crime at the age of twenty five [lets say like a war criminal] and then much later captured and tried; his behavior was due to medications and the mixture of them created a serious problem. Were there no medical expert witnesses who could contribute to the knowledge base here? It was pitiful, they led away a weeping 83 year old man to prison.

When we last talked about the Justice system - we were thinking of ways to create a system in which criminal behavior can be separated from negligent behavior. Karma aside, there are "accidents" and somehow we have to work out ways to deal with those situations.

Maybe we should all just chant. I can't think of anything else.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It's more power for Al Qaeda. Why we would give the power to put our enemies in jail indefinitely to our enemies is beyond me.

When everyone was calling the 9-11 hijackers cowardly, Bill Maher said that whatever they were, they were certainly not cowards.

I will add that they do not for the most part seem to be liars.

Do we ask serial killers who other serial killers are? No.

Actually, yes. If we have reason to supect that two of them know each other, then yes, we do. And pairs are not uncommon.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/s...lers/partners/

I think we should figure out who criminals are the same way people have been doing for thousands of years: by catching them either carrying out or planning actual crimes.

You do realize that many of them, including Hamda...were?

I certainly tried not say it. In any case, I attempted to say that you're establishing likelihood, not proof.

So does a confession. Which is usually taken as proof, even in a courtroom.

So does a lineup.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that one.

I don't think that there's ever a case where being the wrong person's friend is incriminating.

OTOH, when the friend says you're guilty, and you say you're guilty...

But it only counts if you say it in front of a jury?

Being friends with the wrong people makes someone a terrorist?

Go back and read your answers. We've already established that these particular "friends" would not have allowed anyone who didn't share their beliefs near them, for security reasons.

For the same reason, I think we can surmise that John Gotti's driver was not just an innocent bloke working for minimum wage...

In the courtroom, people hear it and judge whether or not it's a. trustworthy and b. sufficient to convict someone.

The presence of lawyers magically confers this power upon them, when they couldn't do it elsewhere?

Originally Posted by Philistine

And the sentence-- time served plus 5 months. (5 1/2 years total). Just... wow.

Wow, indeed.

America is the new Rome, in the process of falling, when its elites can forget injury so quickly in the interest of "understanding" their enemies and when process becomes a higher value than survival.

We may still have the raw might, but we are being eaten alive from within by a cancer when it's considered better to hate those trying to protect us than those trying to destroy us.

From what I've read, the military judge bent over backwards to exclude probative evidence and testimony, in order to achieve a result satisfactory to public and liberal political opinion.

"At the time of his capture at a roadblock in Afghanistan in November 2001, Hamdan had two shoulder-launched missiles, but he said the car was borrowed and the rockets were not his."
http://www.mininggazette.com/page/ca...onal-News.html

And them ain't MY drugs, Officer.

Originally Posted by Lemonaide

Why would a mere driver receive such a harsh sentence?

I despair. We are doomed.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

When everyone was calling the 9-11 hijackers cowardly, Bill Maher said that whatever they were, they were certainly not cowards.

I will add that they do not for the most part seem to be liars.

Therefore, they obtain total control over our judicial process in the middle east?

I'm not sure how to proceed with this argument, as I think that one of the first principles of justice is that laws are created to be used against, not by, criminals. And surely to use a power against someone you cannot give them control of it?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Actually, yes. If we have reason to supect that two of them know each other, then yes, we do. And pairs are not uncommon.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/s...lers/partners/

For the most part, those "pairs" have one leader and one follower who's less interested in the crimes. And many of those examples end up in his word-her word (or whatever) scenarios where no one ever knows exactly who did what.

And I know of no cases at all where a serial killer was captured and later incriminated a partner who was not already implicated in the crimes based on the evidence already found. This is what we're talking about: criminals implicating each other in the absence of external evidence, not simply working together.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You do realize that many of them, including Hamda...were?

Good. Should be easy to convict them, then.

If when they were arrested they were completely clean and there's no evidence of an outside crime, aren't they innocent? If not, what crime did they commit?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So does a confession. Which is usually taken as proof, even in a courtroom.

So does a lineup.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that one.

I'm saying that the evidence is insufficient. Let's say that you're a terrorist and you get arrested. What's to stop you from naming some of your enemies back home? Or even better, enemies of your organization? The incentive is even stronger when you consider that we are torturing them to gain this "information".

Originally Posted by Inquartata

OTOH, when the friend says you're guilty, and you say you're guilty...

But it only counts if you say it in front of a jury?

It doesn't count if they both say it in an otherwise empty universe.

It doesn't count if they say it to each other quietly on the street.

Clearly there's a point where it has to count. Whether it is actually said in front of a jury, said in front of a witness who testifies in front of a jury, or is recorded and then played back in front of the jury is of no consequence. But surely whoever decides the guilt must assess the evidence?

Also, if the terrorist confesses, I have no problem holding them in Guantanamo. I believe that you would be held as a U.S. citizen in our country as well; I don't think anyone would argue with holding a confessed terrorist.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Go back and read your answers. We've already established that these particular "friends" would not have allowed anyone who didn't share their beliefs near them, for security reasons.

So what? Going back to the serial killer analogy, if you look at the partners and groups, it is very common for one of the pair to receive a very light sentence. And surely a serial killer would not allow someone at the scene of the crime who did not share their beliefs?

Furthermore, beliefs are never a crime. This is a founding principle in our country. I can believe that murder is a perfectly acceptable hobby, but as long as I don't act on my belief I have not committed a crime.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

For the same reason, I think we can surmise that John Gotti's driver was not just an innocent bloke working for minimum wage...

Really? Surely, he was someone well-known to Gotti, but what does that mean? That he's guilty of murder? Of theft? Of being hired by the wrong person?

I'm going to postulate that if John Gotti offers you a driver job, it's more of a statement than a question. Maybe the driver was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe he used to believe in the same principles, but has since become disillusioned and is actually working to sabotage Gotti as much as he can while preserving his own safety.

There are a lot of scenarios that involve an innocent driver. I don't think he should be convicted because there's the wrong name on the registration in the glove box, no.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The presence of lawyers magically confers this power upon them, when they couldn't do it elsewhere?

Who's they? (I personally don't care who "they" are as long as there is someone, be it a military court, a jury, or just a judge. I'm of the opinion that 90% of these trials will be extremely straightforward.)

Lawyers are fairly necessary to most court cases. Otherwise, what's to stop this:

Judge: You are accused of fajewionaoining. Do you have any evidence in your defense?
Plantif: Accused of what?
Judge: fajewionaoining
Plantif: What's that?
Judge: Do you have evidence against it?
Plantif: What?
Judge: GUILTY!

Again, I don't think this IS happening, but not allowing lawyers gives the government power to convict whoever it wants simply by obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

America is the new Rome, in the process of falling, when its elites can forget injury so quickly in the interest of "understanding" their enemies and when process becomes a higher value than survival.

We may still have the raw might, but we are being eaten alive from within by a cancer when it's considered better to hate those trying to protect us than those trying to destroy us.

From what I've read, the military judge bent over backwards to exclude probative evidence and testimony, in order to achieve a result satisfactory to public and liberal political opinion.

A value higher than survival? First, surely the terrorists don't threaten our survival. So far they killed somewhere around 3,000 people here, plus another 3,000 troops in Iraq--that's nothing. Hitler threatened our survival 60 years ago. Britain threatened our survival 200 years ago. A couple of guys in a cave killing 100 people at a time threaten nothing but our courage and our will as a nation.

On the other hand, I think that making exceptions to rights is very pertinent to our survival, maybe not as individuals, and maybe not as a sovereign nation, but as a people with a set of principles. I don't think that the current legal status of the prisoners in Guantanamo and elsewhere that are not being granted habeus corpus is an immediate threat to anyone domestically, and therefore to our freedoms, but I think it's dangerous to allow loopholes. Isn't the Republican message these days that the terrorists "hate our freedoms?" Why would we weaken those freedoms, then, to fight the terrorists?

And thirdly, what's to stop you from applying these principles retroactively? What about the Red Scare of the 50s, widely regarded today as being contrary to all of our principles? Or the Japenese internment camps of the 40s? These both actually threatened the existence of our nation, which the terrorists fail to do, and they both had the potential to attack our country from within, which the terrorists are capable of but haven't with one exception. I think that your statements above are directly contradictory to all of our principles as a nation; that a person has freedom of speech and expression, that they are innocent until proven guilty, and that all deserve a fair trial--all regardless of the seriousness of crimes. I do realize that the Constitution does not protect these people, but I feel like this is just a legal loophole. The Constitution makes no exceptions, and I feel that we shouldn't either.

I have no opinion on Osama's driver, other than that I'm glad he got a trial. The sentence seems odd to me in that there are really two options: either he is guilty of terrorist activities, in which case it is obviously too weak, or he is not guilty of such activities, in which case it is obviously too strong. I agree that the only solution I can see is that it was a politically motivated attempt to please everyone which will probably end up pleasing no one.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

When everyone was calling the 9-11 hijackers cowardly, Bill Maher said that whatever they were, they were certainly not cowards.

I will add that they do not for the most part seem to be liars.
{snip}
OTOH, when the friend says you're guilty, and you say you're guilty...

But it only counts if you say it in front of a jury?

Are you saying then, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's testimony at Hamdan's trial--that Hamdan was not involved or aware of operational decisions is accurate?

{snip}Wow, indeed.

America is the new Rome, in the process of falling, when its elites can forget injury so quickly in the interest of "understanding" their enemies and when process becomes a higher value than survival.

We may still have the raw might, but we are being eaten alive from within by a cancer when it's considered better to hate those trying to protect us than those trying to destroy us.

This seems a bit... histrionic.

Also--you seem to be suggesting the "jury" is made up of "elites". While this is true, to an extent, not in the way you suggest. I'm at a loss to understand why you would think a jury panel "led by a U.S. Navy captain who has commanded a ship at sea. Others include an Army colonel, the only woman; an Air Force colonel; a Marine lieutenant colonel with a chestful of medals and, two Army lieutenants colonel, one who has flown Apache helicopters in Panama and Iraq missions" would be predisposed to be lenient or forgive injury.

From what I've read, the military judge bent over backwards to exclude probative evidence and testimony, in order to achieve a result satisfactory to public and liberal political opinion.

Where did you hear this? The only thing along these lines that I've heard is that his instructions were not clear on the issue of conspiracy (which he was acquitted of). Of course, there is some doubt that conspiracy actually violates the law of war... (There is likewise some doubt that anything he was convicted of was actually illegal at the time....)

I despair. We are doomed.

I don't know--most criticisms I've seen of the fact of prosecution has been the government's claim that Hamdan was among the few "worst of the worst."

A bunch of O-5's and O-6's clearly disagreed.

--Philistine

[To_The_Point]

Originally Posted by sionnach

Victory for your constitution, defeat for civilisation.

Alright, lets ban sidewalks too, dangerous deamons they are.

No butter knives for you.

Or forks.

Or swords.

No anything.

If we all live in a cave and pretend that the government is keeping us safe we'll be safe right?








WRONG!

[Inquartata]

Finally getting back to this, as I bored with baiting Neinteen...

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Therefore, they obtain total control over our judicial process in the middle east?

Ah...we HAVE a "judicial process in the middle east"?

I rather thought that they had their own legal systems there...

one of the first principles of justice is that laws are created to be used against, not by, criminals.

Boy, when you're wrong you don't do it by half-measures, do you?

And surely to use a power against someone you cannot give them control of it?

Right, it's SO much better to give it to their defense attorneys instead...

( NB Despite your assumption, I do not agree that we are even discussing 'criminals' in the first place. )

For the most part, those "pairs" have one leader and one follower who's less interested in the crimes. And many of those examples end up in his word-her word (or whatever) scenarios where no one ever knows exactly who did what.

Relevance?

And I know of no cases at all where a serial killer was captured and later incriminated a partner who was not already implicated in the crimes based on the evidence already found. This is what we're talking about: criminals implicating each other in the absence of external evidence, not simply working together.

"In the absence of external evidence"?

You mean, like having missiles in your car?

Good. Should be easy to convict them, then.

If when they were arrested they were completely clean and there's no evidence of an outside crime, aren't they innocent? If not, what crime did they commit?

I am embarrassed to admit that I've lost this thread of the debate.

Let's say that you're a terrorist and you get arrested.

I'd prefer "killed".

What's to stop you from naming some of your enemies back home? Or even better, enemies of your organization? The incentive is even stronger when you consider that we are torturing them to gain this "information".

That's where good interrogators and good intel comes in. You check up on things said. You try to draw out answers that you already know are true, or false, and check the subject's accuracy.

Much easier than trying to do it in court, with defense attorneys interfering.

It doesn't count if they both say it in an otherwise empty universe.

It doesn't count if they say it to each other quietly on the street.

Why not?

Also, if the terrorist confesses, I have no problem holding them in Guantanamo. I believe that you would be held as a U.S. citizen in our country as well; I don't think anyone would argue with holding a confessed terrorist.[/quote}

Oh, but the confession was COERCED! He didn't realize what he was saying! Move to exclude!

What are you trying to prove here?

Usually in crimes with several perpetrators one gets a reduced sentence by testifying against the other(s). This in itself does NOT establish that the deal-maker was himself innocent or making things up...

Again, what's the relevance? We are not holding him for believing anything, but for actions. Remember the missiles?

No one is arresting kids in the madrassas, or even their teachers.

Assuming that he's caught with missiles in his car, you mean?

I'd suggest an ad hoc field firing squad...

Really?

So, let's not worry about the acquiring nuclear or biological weapons, then. They're just a minor irritant, we're too big to be destroyed...

Fallacy of division.

Really? How?

Again, the "rights" of which you speak do not inure to hostile foreigners abroad. The Constitution is a compact between and protecting a subset of human beings, not humanity as a species.


Isn't the Republican message these days that the terrorists "hate our freedoms?" Why would we weaken those freedoms, then, to fight the terrorists?

See immediately above. We are doing anything to OUR freedoms. They are ours, not those of foreign nationals trying to destroy us.

And thirdly, what's to stop you from applying these principles retroactively? What about the Red Scare of the 50s, widely regarded today as being contrary to all of our principles? Or the Japenese internment camps of the 40s?

Did either of these involve hostile foreign nationals operating abroad?

I do realize that the Constitution does not protect these people

Hello.

but I feel like this is just a legal loophole. The Constitution makes no exceptions, and I feel that we shouldn't either.

Er---what?

[Neinteen]

you really need to just die.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Are you saying then, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's testimony at Hamdan's trial--that Hamdan was not involved or aware of operational decisions is accurate?

I don't know. In that case, there is a clear motive to exculpate him. What is the motive to incriminate him? Or is the law no longer concerned with motive?

This seems a bit... histrionic.

What can I say?

Also--you seem to be suggesting the "jury" is made up of "elites". While this is true, to an extent, not in the way you suggest.

So, you don't consider officers part of an elite military class?

Where did you hear this?

http://cbs5.com/national/war.crimes.....2.776373.html

http://news.yahoo.com/story//nm/2008..._hearings_dc_2

http://www.acsblog.org/guest-blogger...uantanamo.html


"Missed a deadline"? This is what laymen mean when they talk about the guilty "getting off on a technicality".

You get the same sort of behavior from judges who are NOT political actors in high-profile test cases, so why should we think it wouldn't happen here?

A bunch of O-5's and O-6's clearly disagreed.

As I am sure they were instructed to do...